The record includes a short overview and links to some 80 records which are the evidence itself. See an updated, expanded list of evidence with links to records and short descriptions under: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32907453/ 10-06-11-Dr-Zernik-s-Complaints-Filed-with-Office-of-Comptroller-of-the-Currency-and-SEC-against-Countrywide-Bank-of-America-NYSE-BAC-and-Brian-Mo

In the course of attempting to secure the Human Rights of Richard Fine, it became apparent that the case management system of the Los Angeles Sheriff Department, like database management systems of the courts, suffers from lack of integrity. The Sheriff's system must be of particular concern - it allowed arbitrary deprivation of liberty. See also similar series constructed for: 1) Jose Rodriguez http://www.scribd.com/doc/25064776/ 10-01-11-Inmate-Information-Center-data-survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s 2) John Smith http://www.scribd.com/doc/24816245/ 10-01-05 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Online Inmate Information Center - Data Sur Please see also review paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32470740/ 10-06-03-Data-Mining-as-a-Civic-Duty-Online-Public-Prisoners-Registration-Systems-draft-scholarly-paper-s

Subject matter was alleged racketeering by Bank of America Corporation and Brian Moynihan - its president at the Los Angeles County, California, courts, and refusal of US banking regulators, FBI, and US Department of Justice to provide equal protection in Los Angeles County, California.

Efforts to secure the Human Rights of Richard Fine revealed material deficiencies in the case management system of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department - Inmate Information Center. Given the limited access to data, indirect efforts were made to produce initial assessment of system integrity.

Interest in the Harris County Sheriff’s Office case management system (CMS) arose following an email from a Texas fellow, Dr Shirley Pigott, regarding the taking of Carol Ann Davis, her friend. Interest was also in reviewing the Harris County CMS as a comparison to the CMS of the Sheriff’s Department of Los Angeles County, California – and the online Inmate Information Center - which were deemed fraudulent by design and in operation. [1] [2] [3] [4] The online system of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, in this superficial review, initially appeared exemplary in its integrity compared to the Los Angeles County, California, Sheriff’s Department CMS – all listed inmates had SPN numbers issued, and all courts that were listed could be identified as existing courts, compared to the large percentage of entries in the Los Angeles CMS who had no booking number issued, and who had fictitious court listings. However, further analysis of the Harris County, Texas, data - attempt to correlate the SPN numbers with Booking Date - failed to reveal correlations. Finally - the glaring deficiency remained: Carol Ann Davis, who was taken over 12 hours earlier, and was claimed to be held by the Harris County Sheriff, was never listed on the system at all.

The complete files for the Local Rules were downloaded from the Court's web site. Of note, the Local Rules of Court failed to provide any foundation for the operation of PACER and CM/ECF, and the new authentication instruments that are the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) or the use of digital court stamps.

Initial interest in the case management system of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department arose following the jailing and hospitalization of two senior attorneys, who had filed complaints pertaining to allegations of corruption of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court. One of them, Richard Fine, has been confined under coerced hospitalization for over 10 months. In parallel – Los Angeles Sheriff, Lee Baca, refused to allow access to California Public Records, which were the arrest and booking papers of the two attorneys. Instead, his office repeatedly referenced false and deliberately misleading data published on the online Inmate Information Center. Previous data surveys demonstrated that about 30% of the entries in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Inmate information Center had no booking number available. It further showed that about 50% of the entries had fictitious court and/or case number listed as the legal authority for their jailing. Data surveys for common latino names such as “Jose Martinez”, “Jose Rodriguez”, versus common “anglo” names such as John Smith or John Williams, also suggested that latino named inmates were more likely to be missing a booking number or listed with other false data. Here, such data were further analyzed by accessing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department listing of inmates from two alternative sources: The VINE system, and the Inmate Information Center, and by comparing the results of the same queries from the two systems. The differences were of surprisingly large magnitude: ... Results of such analysis was claimed to demonstrate that upon investigation it was very likely to be found that large-scale false arrests and false jailing were prevalent in Los Angeles County, California. The evidence demonstrated that such practices were patronized by the courts. Additional evidence demonstrated widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – relative to real estate and financial institution fraud. FBI and the US Department of Justice refused to investigate allegations and overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption of the Los Angeles County justice system. It was therefore proposed that international observers should attempt to access public records in Los Angeles County, California, and further explore what appeared as large scale false jailing – direct extension of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000). Conditions of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, may also require immediate approach to International Human Rights courts.

Beyond the introductory narrative about 130 links to records are provided as evidence of ongoing racketeering by Brian Moynihan and Bank of America at the Los Angeles Superior Court. D. LAYPERSON’S INTRODUCTION Most honest persons are likely to have difficulty in understanding the range of convoluted schemes employed by Countrywide and Bank of America described in instant complaint. Therefore, a layperson’s introduction is provided below: 1. REAL ESTATE FRAUD - Under Samaan v Zernik Countrywide, and Bank of America after it, were key perpetrators in a real estate fraud and banking fraud, which was opined by fraud experts second to none – James Wedick – (36) FBI veteran, who was decorated by US Congress, FBI Director, and US Attorney General, and Robert Meister – renowned fraud expert. The case involved no foreclosure, no bankruptcy, and no default on mortgage of any kind. Regardless, Dr Zernik was forced to leave his home under illicit threat of force, the property was taken for private use. Fraud in conveyance of title was committed in December 2007, ~$1.8 millions were collected in the purported sale of the property, but Dr Zernik was never compensated to this date in one penny for his residence. 2. HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION - Once Dr Zernik exposed the fraud and filed complaints with law enforcement, an extortionist retaliation campaign was initiated by Countrywide, and later continued by Bank of America. The campaign entailed the fraudulent employment of one of the worlds largest law firms to harass, intimidates, and retaliate against Dr Zernik. 3. FALSE PARTY DESIGNATION SCHEME - In civil litigations of the Superior Court one finds at minimum “Plaintiff” and “Defendant”. However, there is NO such party designation as “Non Party". Countrywide and Bank of America have been filing papers for 2.5 years under party designation "NON PARTY". Think about it as if in a football game, a third team appeared on the field, assisting one of the two legitimate teams in the game, and was listed on the scoreboard as "NON TEAM". 4. FALSE COUNSEL SCHEME - Attorneys appeared on behalf of Countrywide and Bank of America in courts, without being legally authorized to appear on behalf of their clients. As routine part of such schemes Countrywide was documented in the Case of Borrower Parsley in US Bankruptcy Court in Texas (9) as retaining such false counsel with "no communications with client clause.” Think about it as hiring a hit man, with a written contract never to contact the client once the hit man is hired, hoping to maintain deniability regarding conduct of the hit man that way. 5. PRODUCING OF FABRICATED BANKING RECORDS - The collapse of Countrywide in January 2008 was unrelated to the performance of its loan portfolios. Instead - it was the market's reaction to the publication by the New York Times, that Countrywide was caught in the Case of Borrower Hill in Pennsylvania, filing "Recreated Letters" as evidence. (37) Filing of false and deliberately misleading records was also part of the practices documented in Case of Borrower Parsley. (9) However, in the case described below, Countrywide produced hundreds of false banking records, (19) which documented in great detail the non-existent underwriting of residential mortgages already in 2004 – creating liabilities to the US government, which is the foundation of the current crisis. 6. OBSTRUCTION AND EXTORTION – Bank of America published a Code of Ethics, which promised to “do the right thing”, and Outside Counsel Procedures, which stated that outside counsel must be authorized to appear on behalf of Bank of America in a give caption, must not engage in obstructionist conduct, and must report to the General Counsel on conduct involving fraud that they may become aware of. The evidence provided here shows the exact opposite conduct. 7. WHY DO THEY BOTHER? - Angelo MOZILO – then Countrywide CEO, Sandor SAMUELS – then Countrywide Chief Legal Officer, today – Bank

Following previous surveys of the inmates case management system of the Sheriff’s Department of LA County, California, [1] and of Harris County, Texas, [2] which were name-based, attempt was made to survey the Los Angeles system for consecutive inmate booking numbers. The online Inmate Information Center of the Sheriff’s Department of Los Angeles County did not allow search by number. Therefore, such search had to be conducted through the VINE Link system. Two series of booking numbers were queried, 20 in each the “High Series” and “Low Series”, which were previously shown to be issued in parallel by the Sheriff’s Department. In the Low Series only four (4) out of the twenty consecutive numbers matched an inmate name. In the High Series only five (5) numbers out of twenty consecutive numbers matched an inmate name. In each series, at least one of the non-matched booking numbers corresponded to a known inmate name. Generally, the findings confirmed the networked nature of the various terminals. However, the existence of two series of booking numbers, issued in parallel, remained inexplicable. In addition, departures from consecutive numbers relative to booking time were found. As in past surveys, reliance on non-existent court names was a common finding. For one of the nine (9) named inmates, who was held for fourteen days, no court name or court case number were listed at all. For another named inmate, and invalid case number (99999) was listed. One could have reasoned that only data for inmates whose offence level was “Felony” were forwarded from the Sheriff’s Department to VINE Link. However, for two (2) of the nine (9) named inmates on VINE Link no Offense Level was listed in the online Inmate Information Center of the Sheriff’s Department at all. The general nature of the online Inmate Information Center is again found as inconsistent with honest, valid implementation. The option to search the online Inmate Information Center by booking number should be provided – it is a critical safeguard for integrity of such system. Instant survey, like the previous surveys documented the urgent need for publicly-accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems, which are a hazard for the Liberty of all who reside in the respective counties.

Abstract: Online registries of prisoners are a subset of social networks - government controlled and subject to particular laws. They hold public records, which replaced the Index of All Prisoners, critical for the safeguard of Human Rights – Liberty itself. Transition to digital records raised validity, verification, and security problems. Hundreds of entries were sampled in the Los Angeles, California, online Inmate Information Center, and about half of the entries were found invalid. In particular cases, access to the arrest and booking records – public records by California law, was requested. Access was denied, neither were invalid records corrected upon request. Therefore, it was concluded that the invalid records posted online were not the outcome of inadvertent error. Ways and means are readily available to address the deficiencies currently detected. Regardless - transparency and constant data mining will remain a civic duty – to safeguard integrity of prisons and protect Human Rights.

January 8, 2010 copy of response from office of Brian Moynihan, BAC CEO & President on complaint to OCC (#00971981) - as mailed to Dr Zernik. It was alleged that such response should be deemed as fraud, tightly coordinated by office of Mr Brian Cave and the former CFC Legal Department - Mr Sandor Samuels and/or Mr Todd Boock.

April 2008 the published BofA Outside Counsel Procedures. Obstructionist conduct by outside counsel is strictly prohibited. Outside Counsel is not allowed to appear unless authorized by BAC office of the General Counsel, and Outside Counsel is required to report per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) section 307. Bryan Cave, LLP, and the former CFC Legal Department, headed by Sandor Samuels were exempted from all such procedures starting December 11, 2008, under Bryan Moynihan. Therefore, the published Outside Counsel Procedures are alleged as false representations and fraud on shareholders, banking regulators, and the US taxpayer - sponsor of BofA to the tune of over $200 billions in the past two years. In contrast - note: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25700960/ 09-01-13-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Non-Party-Countrywide-s-Purported-Order-to-Show-Cause-for-Contempt-and-for-Sanctions-and-Other-Orders-Alleged

10-05-22 Complaint Filed with FBI, Los Angeles, against Michael Libow (Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage) and Gail Hershowitz (Mara Escrow) The complaint hinged on a total of three records: a) A November 2004 signed statement by Gail Hershowitz - that September 22, 2004 Real Estate Contract was faxed to her by Michael Libow. b) 2007 Subpoena production by Gail Hershowitz and Mara Escrow - failed to include the September 22, 2004 contract record, instead included a record that is alleged as forgery and adulteration. c) 2007 Subpoena production by Michael Libow - failed to include the September 22, 2004 contract record, instead included a record that is alleged as forgery and adulteration. The adulteration and forgery alleged in the record produced by Hershowitz and Libow are claimed to be the product of image processing, which could be easily discerned even by a lay person, including, but not limited to: a) Elimination of authentication data - fax header imprints were eliminated from the record. b) Placement and replacement of graphic signatures using cut and paste. c) Deskewing d) Background reduction. The outcome was appropriately termed by Mara Escrow counsel the "Cleaned Contract".

“…During several hearings over the past year, the Court received evidence on a wide range of misconduct beyond this initial misrepresentation. The parties are a mortgage loan servicer and its two law fIrms: (I) Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), the loan servicer for Fannie Mae, the mortgagee of the Debtor's home loan; … Their collective conduct caused this Court to issue two Show Cause Orders. This Memorandum Opinion discusses how their actions in the case at bar have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system.”

Executive Summary Complaint was filed July 6, 2010, with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, against Brian Moynihan – President/CEO, Sandor Samuels – Associate General Counsel, Bank of America Corporation, and Attorneys Jenna Moldawsky and John Amberg alleging: (a) Public Corruption and Financial Institution Fraud relative to their conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles pursuant to various acts, including, but not limited to the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009); (b) Large-scale fraud on the US government and the US taxpayer in funding government-backed uniform (sub-prime) residential loan applications with no underwriting at all in violation of Regulation B of the Federal Reserve and “sound banking principles” as evidenced in records produced in the same caption; (c) Consequent violations of Qui Tam – False Claims Act – in seeking hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout funds from the US government for the large-scale default of such loans, which were funded in violation of the law, and (d) Large-scale securities fraud pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act (1934) and Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), relative to false certification signed starting January 1, 2010 by Brian Moynihan as President/CEO of Bank of America Corporation in periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, failure to report fraud by corporate counsel and by management to the Audit Committee, and refusal to allow review complaints by the Audit Committee. Combined, their conduct is alleged as involving numerous predicated acts in the past three years, and satisfying the elements required for prosecution for racketeering pursuant to RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (1970). The July 6, 2010 complaint relied in part on previous complaints: (a) June 11, 2010 complaint against Brian Moynihan and Bank of America Corporation, filed with the Office of Comptroller of the Currency and the Securities and Exchange Commission; (b) June 21, 2010 complaint, filed with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Attorney David Pasternak, former President of the Los Angeles Bar Association, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law relative to real estate fraud under the caption referenced above, as opined by one of the best known fraud experts in the US and FBI agent assigned to the case, and (c) May 11, 2010 complaint, filed with FBI against Nivie Samaan and others for real estate fraud and other violations of the law. US banking regulators and the US Justice Department repeatedly promised the US Congress, the people of the US, and the international community to investigate any criminality that may have caused the current economic crisis, inflicting harm on workers and investors world-wide. The case at hand documents in great detail such alleged criminality. Therefore, the US Attorney, Central District of California, was called upon to perform his duties and provide equal protection to complainant Dr Joseph Zernik, to shareholders of Bank of America Corporation, and to all who reside in the United States pursuant to the US Constitution and ratified international law – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Conduct documented in the July 6. 2010 complaint was not unique at all, only its scale and the evidence of involvement of senior management were. Examples were provided of similar conduct in other cases. It also documented the central role of alleged widespread corruption of the legal profession in undermining US financial systems and corporate governance, and failure of US law enforcement and the courts to enforce provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), which were specifically enacted to address such conduct by counsel. The continued dysfunctional state of US banking regulation poses risks to the US economy that are difficult to assess

It is alleged that responses by then Circuit Judge Sotomayor to US Senate should be deemed a case of fraud on US Congress. Sonia Sotomayor listed among her decisions cases where orders were unsigned and were served with no authentication at all. Furthermore, the US Circuit Court for the 2nd District is denying access to the NDAs - authentication records of such purported court decisions. Therefore - such court orders could not possibly be deemed honest, valid and effectual court orders, which required "full faith and credit". JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX Question 13(b): Provide citations for all opinions you have written, including concurrences and dissents. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Kelsey v. County of Schoharie, --- F.3d ---- (2d Cir. 2009) U.S. v. Abdulle, --- F.3d ---- (2d Cir. 2009) Mendis v. Filip, 554 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2009) U.S. v. Varrone, 554 F.3d 327 (2d Cir. 2009) U.S. v. Draper, 553 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2009) U.S. v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 1

On August 3, 2009, Complaint (Dkt #1) in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) was filed, pursuant to cause of action of Securities Fraud – 15 USC §77. Litigation in this matter continues to this date. Concomitantly with the filing of the complaint, the parties noticed the court of their intent to file a proposed Consent Judgment in the case – in the sum of ~$30 millions. The August 25, 2009 Order (Dkt #13) stated: This Court has the obligation, within carefully prescribed limits, to determine whether the proposed Consent Judgment settling this case is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. Both parties filed papers in support of their proposed Consent Judgment. On September 9, 2009, Dr Zernik submitted, as an affidavit letter to chambers, copied to the parties, objection to the proposed settlement. Such affidavit was submitted following instructions from chambers regarding the procedure permitted for such affidavit. The September 15, 2009 Memorandum Opinion (Dkt #22) rejected the proposed settlement, then pending, and ordered the parties to set schedules for trial in February 2010. The core arguments in the September 9, 2009 Affidavit by Dr Zernik in opposition to the then proposed settlement can be summed as follows: · Conduct of Bank of America Corporation following the takeover of Countrywide Financial Corporation demonstrated adamant refusal to comply with the law. · Conduct of SEC and other US banking regulators in recent years demonstrated adamant refusal to enforce the law, and cover up of the alleged and opined criminality in banking operations. · SEC and Bank of America Corporation never arrived in court as adversarial parties, and therefore, neither the settlement, nor an attempt to litigate the complaint were likely to be effectual. Following records include: 1) Table of Contents - ii - iv 2) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Transmittal Letter for the Affidavit – 1 3) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Affidavit – 2 - 25 4) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Appendices for the Affidavit – 26 – 545

Large scale violations of Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California were alleged. The hallmarks are false imprisonments and real estate fraud by judges under the guise of litigations. Racketeering is alleged by judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court. International monitoring of the California and US courts was recommended, absent which the precipitous deterioration in Human Rights conditions was unlikely to cease.

Los Angeles, Feb 9, 2010 - An unnamed District Attorney Deputy, and the union representing the deputies filed complaint in US District Court, Los Angeles, against the District Attorney of Los Angeles County. Among the claims in the complaint of One Unnamed Deputy District Attorney et al v County of Los Angeles et al, it was alleged that the District Attorney, Steve Cooley, punished Deputies who shared discovery materials with Defense Attorneys, as required by law. It was also alleged that District Attorney Cooley openly discriminated and punished any Deputy who joined the union.

PBS Frontline program "LAPD BLUES" is a living online monument for the human rights abuses taking place in Los Angeles County, California. Conditions of the justice system in Los Angeles County are a Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions.

Opinion Letter by fraud expert James Wedick, an FBI veteran who was decorated by US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by FBI Director, is probably the single best evidence for the operation of the Equity/Enterprise Track by the LA-JR (alleged LA Juduciary Racket) at the LA Superior Court.

In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Plaintiff filed complaint at the United States District Court, Los Angeles against 10 judges of the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to deprivation of civil rights under the color of law 42 USC s1983. Moreover, it was alleged that the conduct of such judges in collusion with Countrywide/Bank of America Home Loans amounted to racketeering. The papers served by the court on plaintiff were deemed void, not voidable - none included valid and effectual authentication by clerk through a valid NEF (notice of electronic filing). Moreover, such records demonstrated the alleged fraud at the US Court, perpetrated through operation of PACER & CM/ECF. Other records in this series provide additional evidence and alanysis of the fraud in design and operation of the United States courts case management and public access systems.

The General Order 08-02 is purported by the US District Court, Central District of California, as providing the authority of its present day practice of NEFs in CM/ECF. The General Order 08-02 is alleged as central to the fraud in CM/ECF. First - such practice had to be established by Rules of Court, not by General Order, and second - the General Order 08-02 failed to even name its author, let alone bear a signature. BELOW ARE PARAGRAPHS THAT MAY BE OBLITERATED BY THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS IN SOME BROWSERS: F. “Electronic Signature” refers to the signature of an electronically filed document based on: (1) the CM/ECF User’s login and password and (2) the person’s representative signature, “/S/ – Name,” or a digitized personalized signature or facsimile signature on the signature line of the document. ... I. Hyperlinks. Documents filed electronically may only contain hyperlinks to sections of the same document. Hyperlinks to other documents, websites, source documents, or citations are not permitted. ... K. Notice of Discrepancies For Electronically Filed Documents. The Clerk’s Office may notify CM/ECF Users of discrepancies found in electronically filed documents by a discrepancy notice. In response to this notice, the assigned judge may order: (1) an amended or corrected document to be filed, (2) the document stricken, or (3) other action as the assigned judge deems appropriate. ... 55. O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court. The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s) is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court. ... B. Pro Se Litigants. Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to be filed and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk’s Office into the CM/ECF system. ... VI. Proposed Orders, Proposed Judgments, or Other Proposed Documents That Require a Judge’s Signature. A. Electronically Filed Proposed Documents. When a proposed order or other proposed document accompanies a filing, the proposed order or other proposed document shall be in PDF format and included, as an attachment, to the main electronically filed document (e.g., stipulations, applications, motions). Proposed orders or other proposed documents that are not filed with a main document, such as a proposed judgment or proposed findings of fact, shall be electronically filed as an attachment to a Notice of Lodging and shall be linked to the order or minute order directing the preparation of the proposed document. ... B. Service of the Court’s Orders or Other Court Generated Documents. Orders or other documents generated by the court will be served electronically unless: (1) an attorney is not a registered CM/ECF User, (2) an attorney is a CM/ECF User but has not consented to electronic service, or (3) a party is appearing pro se. If any of these situations exist, traditional service will be made by the court on that party(s) only. ... VIII. Signatures. An electronically filed document shall be deemed to be signed by the person (the “Signatory”) when the document identifies the person as a Signatory and the filing complies with either subparagraph (A) or (B) of this Section. Any filing in accordance with any of the

It should be noted that this paper, unique in its alleged fraudulence, was filed on behalf of Bank of America at a time that Brian Moynihan, today Bank of America's President served as its General Counsel. 09-01-13. Att Jenna Moldawsky – Winner of the 2008 Pinocchio Award* As the year comes to a close, there is no doubt that Atty Moldawsky deserves more than anybody else the 2008 Pinocchio Award! Atty Moldawsky won the award for her landmark paper: “Non-Party Countrywide Home Loans, Inc’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Monetary Sanctions…”.** “In this artful pleading, Atty Moldawsky masterly crafted all possible Pinocchio effects: – Atty Moldawsky purportedly represents a corporate client, but she would not answer direct questions about its identity, neither has she filed any corporate disclosure in the past six months since BofA took over Countrywide, and since Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo presumably ceased to be Countrywide employees. Atty Moldawsky also filed no paper showing she was authorized by BofA, and BofA denied she was authorized. – Atty Moldawsky purportedly represents a client whom she designates “Non-Party”. By what authority and on what legal foundation she came by this party designation? Obviously it is handy in failing to report the violations of the law per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) §307, but why did the Clerk of the Court accept such filing? – Atty Moldawsky’s paper claims to be part of a case captioned Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), of the LA Superior Court. But the offices of Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Court refuse to certify such facts. – Atty Moldawsky adequately listed no judge as being assigned the to the case on the face page. And yet, in the first sentence she noticed it to “Department J”. What legal theory led Atty Moldawsky in determination of venue and jurisdiction? Maybe the fact that Mr Terry Friedman is a friend of Mr Sandor Samuels.., – Atty Moldawsky’s arguments are based on a purported July 23, 2007 Order by Judge Connor, but a valid order that was issued, served, noticed, and entered in a timely manner is yet to be produced… – Atty Moldawsky included in her motion a table of authorities. How did she determine that such case is adjudicated by the Law of the State of California ? – Atty Moldawsky, again, produced evidence with no authentication, and insufficient pleadings – with declaration by counsel alone. The Pinocchio Award committee congratulates you, Atty Moldawsky, for such unique achievement so early in your career – as graduate of UCLA Law School, Class of 2006. Congratulations also to your mentors at Bryan Cave, LLP, Bank of America, and Countrywide. Mr Samuels’ inspiration surely shines between your lines - his precocious student of the art of streamlining, of which he is a master – second to none… All the best!”

11-12-10 Where should Occupy go next? Civil Disobedience in the footsteps of Thoreau and Gandhi!http:// www.scribd.com/doc/75348301/12-06-08 Courts and Judges as racketeering enterprises under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) - key element in the current financial crisishttp://www.scribd.com/doc/96504009/Secede! The US in its current form is simply unmanageable...

What did the experts say?

* דוח סייג לזכויות האדם נכלל בדוח התקופתי של האו"ם לגבי זכויות האדם בישראל (2013), בלוויית ההערה: "חוסר יושרה בכתבים האלקטרוניים של בית המשפט העליון, בתי המשפט המחוזיים, ובתי הדין למוחזקי משמורת בישראל".* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2010 Periodic Review Report regarding Humnan Rights in the United States, with the note: "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2013 Periodic Review Report regarding Humnan Rights in Israel, with the note: "lack of integrity of the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel."

The United States

* "...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* Los Angeles County is"the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud."FBI (2004)

* “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)

* “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239647129/The HRA submission was incorporated into the 2015 HRC Professional Staff Report on the United States with the note: :“HRA NGO recommended restoring the integrity of the IT systems of the courts, under accountability to the Congress, with the goal of making such systems as transparent as possible to the public at large.”

[2] Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2013 UPR of the State of Israel was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Professional Staff Report with the note: "Lack of integrity in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees' courts in Israel".

2012-06-04 Human Right Alert's Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel: Integrity, or lack thereof, of the

[3] Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2010 UPR of the United States was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Professional Staff Report with the note: "Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."

2010-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the

2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report:

[1] 10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, where Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/http://www.scribd.com/doc/108663259/